The barely concealed extremism of an anti-vaccine group

2 Replies

We’re gearing up for another round of the philosophical-exemption debate at the Statehouse. As you may have heard, a State Senate committee is considering a bill that would remove the philosophical exemption for childhood vaccinations. Which has the anti-vaccine community’s knickers in a knot.

Well, they don’t call themselves “the anti-vaccine community,” but that’s exactly what they are. Vermont’s primary anti-vaxx group is the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice (VCVC). It publicly presents itsels as entirely focused on parental choice. From its website:

We are not “anti-vaxxers”… We are dedicated to preserving health choice and informed consent for parents and all Vermonters.

Vaccine movie posterProblem is, the leaders of VCVC just can’t help themselves. Their website prominently trumpets the work of, among others, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an anti-vaxxer who promotes the discredited vaccine/autism canard and who has called vaccination “a holocaust.”

But if you want to see the real scope of VCVC’s nutbaggery, you ought to follow its Twitter feed. You’ll find links to every scattered anecdotal report of alleged vaccine harm, every fringey “scientific study” attacking vaccine efficacy or safety, every alternative-medicine type promoting their own agendas, and every rhetorical excess about vaccination, doctors, nurses, government, and science.

Here are a few choice examples. Reminder: these are communications from a group that claims NOT to be “anti-vaxxers.”

Let’s start with a ham-fisted attack on Vermont media for the unforgivable sin of reporting the science on vaccines, which is fully as probative as the science on climate change and evolution:

They’d probably call me a sellout too. Problem is, I haven’t seen a dime from Big Pharma. I just happen to believe the massive preponderance of scientific evidence. VCVC, on the other hand, searches through the flotsam and jetsam of junk science.

The study was published in the Open Journal of Pediatrics, one of many “open journals” created by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), which offers “244 English language open access journals.” SCIRP is based on Wuhan, China, and has been accused of being a predatory open access publisher.

Predatory open access publishers don’t provide the editorial oversight of real scientific publishers; they aggressively solicit papers, publish them with little or no review, and then try to bill the authors for publication costs. In other words, their articles are not to be trusted. But if an article calls vaccination into question, VCVC is happy to accept it at face value and promote it.

More… after the jump. Continue reading →

It’s time for an outside probe of our Eternal General

1 Reply

Brady Toensing, D.C. attorney and vice chair of the VTGOP, has sometimes operated as the political equivalent of an ambulance chaser — taking legal actions with an obvious partisan motive. He comes by it honestly; his mother and stepdad are notorious conservative attack dogs.

But this time, I’m with him 100%. Toensing has sent a letter to Eternal General Bill Sorrell, asking him to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Sorrell’s campaign activities.

SorrellRehabThis is the second time Toensing has made this request. The first was in October 2012, in the midst of the election campaign — which was reason enough to dismiss it as a partisan stunt. But now, the time has come. There’s enough smoke around Sorrell’s campaign activities to warrant an objective fireman. Especially since Vermont’s campaign finance law makes Bill Sorrell the sole judge and arbiter of whether Bill Sorrell has violated the law. Which Bill Sorrell assures us is not the case. Indeed, he has already rejected Toensing’s request, insisting again that he’s done nothing wrong. We just have to take his word for it, I guess.

This stinks, and if any situation required an outside probe, it’s this one.

Toensing cites four allegations:

— “Coordinated expenditures” in the hotly-contested 2012 primary. Sorrell received a late blast of money (200 G’s) from the Democratic Attorneys General Association (by way of a third party superPAC). As Toensing’s letter says: “This record-setting expenditure was controlled and directed by former Governor Howard Dean, who, at the same time, was an active, high-level agent of your campaign.”

That money was almost certainly the deciding factor in Sorrell’s whisker-thin victory over TJ Donovan. And as Toensing notes in his complaint, one month before the primary, Sorrell “revers[ed] his office policy to allow PACS to accept contributions in excess of the state limit of $2000 and still make unlimited campaign expenditures in Vermont. This action cleared the way for the unprecedented expenditures made on General Sorrell’s behalf during the primary.”

— Failure to comply with campaign finance disclosure laws mandating that a candidate report “each expenditure listed by amount, date, to whom paid, for what purpose.” As Paul Heintz has reported, Sorrell’s reports for personal-expense reimbursement have included numerous vague and incomplete entries.

— A joint appearance with Dean Corren, candidate for Lieutenant Governor, on September 15, 2014. While Sorrell has aggressively pursued Corren for accepting an email blast from the Vermont Democratic Party, he has denied any wrongdoing in his appearance with Corren. He has, in fact, claimed that the appearance was not a campaign event — which is laughable to the point of bitter tears.

— Sorrell has routinely given state business to outside law firms that have contributed heavily to his re-election campaigns. Sorrell denies any quid pro quo, but Toensing cites legal precedent that indicates “In cases involving government officials, a jury can infer guilt from evidence of benefits received and subsequent favorable treatment.”

By that standard, Sorrell’s own denials are clearly inadequate. Given his refusal to investigate himself, as Toensing says, “the appointment of an independent counsel is necessary to restore and maintain the integrity of your office.”

I fully expect Bill Sorrell to refuse this very reasonable request for an objective probe of Bill Sorrell. At that point, we will turn to other Democratic officeholders for leadership. Governor Shumlin has repeatedly ducked questions about Sorrell’s activities, while Secretary of State Jim Condos has said his office lacks the standing to investigate.

Well, standing or no, Shumlin and Condos have their bully pulpits. It’s time to put them to use. They don’t have to throw Sorrell under the bus; all they have to do is say “There are questions that deserve answers, and the only way to restore public trust is through an independent counsel.”

Heck, if they want to, they can even throw in a gratuitous “I’m sure the investigation will show that General Sorrell acted properly.” The important thing is, it’s time to put the heat to Sorrell’s backside and get answers to all of these questions.

Governor? Mr. Secretary? Mr. Speaker? Mr. Pro Tem? We’re waiting.

Ethan Allen Institute: Follow the Money

10 Replies

Back on March 25, the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee held a public hearing on S.R.7, the “climate change resolution.” The only witness who stood in opposition was Vermont’s favorite crank, John McClaughry, founder and former President (now Vice President) of the Ethan Allen Institute.

You're being watched, Mr. McClaughry.

You’re being watched, Mr. McClaughry.

During his testimony, he said S.R.7 was part of a campaign by national climate advocacy groups “to put the skeptics on the defensive” and serve as a fundraising tool. By passing this resolution, he said, the Legislature would act as a “pawn” of those national groups.

Okay, well, since he brought up the idea of a national campaign and national organizations influencing Vermont politics, resolution sponsor Sen. Brian Campion asked him about the Ethan Allen Inistitute’s ties to the Koch brothers and their national network. McClaughry acknowledged a $50,000 grant from the Cato Institute “six years ago,” and he noted Cato’s ties to the Kochs. But otherwise?

I have never been aware that we got any money from the Koch Brothers or the Koch Foundation or Koch Industries, anything like that. And I’ve never had communication from any of those people urging me to, or urging our organization to fight against the climate change advocates. Never.

He went on to deny receiving funds from the State Policy Network, an umbrella organization with strong ties to the Kochs. SPN provides guidance and funding to free-market “think tanks” in each of the 50 states.

There’s a small problem and a big problem with McClaughry’s professions of independence.

The small problem: According to IRS filings, SPN gave EAI $24,930 in 2013.

I’ve been told, second-hand, that McClaughry later wrote to Campion apologizing for his misstatement. If I find out more about that, I’ll let you know.

That kinda-sorta takes care of the small problem. But it fails to address the big problem, which is:

Between 1998 and 2013, EAI received at least $572,260 from out-of-state donors with ties to the Koch brothers’ sprawling network of right-wing foundations. This network is designed to limit public disclosure and provide tax breaks for “charitable donations” that promote the political interests of wealthy conservatives. The network is also designed to give donors plausible deniability by laundering their donations while still giving them control over how their money is used.

Over the past ten years, EAI’s annual revenues have fluctuated between $132,000 and $201,000. So $572,280 is a whole lot of money by EAI standards.

My figures come from Conservative Transparency, a database that ” tracks the flow of money among conservative donors, advocacy groups, political committees, and candidates.”

It’s likely that EAI has received even more money from national conservative organizations, but legal disclosure standards are woefully weak. From the Conservative Transparency website:

Although most nonprofit organizations are required by law to report their outgoing grants to the Internal Revenue Service, they do not have to disclose the sources of their funding. As a result, the transactions in Conservative Transparency are based on information reported by the donors and exclude “dark money” raised by the recipients from unknown donors that are not in the database. The totals in each recipient’s “financial record” are based on a review of the recipient’s publicly available tax documents filed with the IRS.

CT lists 36 donations to EAI from out-of-state conservative groups between 1998 and 2013 (the most recent year for which filings are available), totaling $572,280. A lot of that money came, indirectly, from the Kochs, their organizations, and their fellow members of this broad conservative network.

These donations came from a handful of national foundations, all with strong alliances to the Kochs and their nonprofit empire. This network is designed to provide an appearance of independence, but there’s no doubt that the Ethan Allen Institute is in the Kochs’ orbit.

Here’s a list of EAI benefactors, with dollar figures from Conservative Transparency and descriptions from Sourcewatch.org.

Donors Capital Fund: $298,500. DCF and a related entity, DonorsTrust, “create separate accounts for individual donors, and the donors then recommend disbursements from the accounts to different non-profits. They cloak the identity of the original mystery donors because the funds are then distributed in the name of DT or DCF.

“The Koch brothers and other ultra-wealthy industrial ideologues appear to be cloaking an untold amount of their donations to conservative political outlets through DT and DCF.” One of Charles Koch’s big funds has given “only to Donors Capital Fund since 2005.”

The modus operandi of DCF provides plausible deniability to EAI and other recipients; they can assert with a straight face that they don’t get money from the Kochs. But they do benefit from the largesse of a money-laundering operation created by, and generously funded by, the Kochs.

The Roe Foundation: $95,000. Private foundation started by the late Thomas Roe, former chairman of the State Policy Network, a key cog in the Koch machine. (See below.) His foundation “continues to provide financial support to free-market policy groups across the country.”

The Jaquelin Hume Foundation. $63,000. The Foundation “‘supports free-market solutions to education reform’ and funds many conservative and libertarian organizations.” It has strong ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network.

The Cato Institute: $50,000. A “libertarian think tank founded by Charles Koch and funded by the Koch brothers.” Over the years, “the Koch family has donated more than $30 million to the organization.”

The State Policy Network. $24,930. SPN “has franchised, funded, and fostered… a web of right-wing ‘think tanks’ in every state across the country. It is an $83 million right-wing empire as of the 2011 funding documents from SPN itself and each of its state ‘think tank’ members.” SPN had its origins in the 1980s, but dramatically stepped up its activities in 1998.

“Fueled by robust funding from right-wing funders including the Koch brothers… SPN has grown rapidly in recent years. There were 12 original think tanks when SPN was founded. In 2013, there were 64 SPN member think tanks in all 50 states.”

Although SPN insists its members are “fiercely independent,” The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer has reported that SPN head Tracie Sharp “compared the organization’s model to that of IKEA.” Like IKEA, SPN “would provide the raw materials along with the services needed to assemble the products. …’Pick what you need,’ she said, ‘and customize it for what works best for you.’

“…  Sharp ‘also acknowledged privately that the organization’s often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. ‘The grants are driven by donor intent’ ..  [and] often ‘the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.'”

The Chase Foundation of Virginia. $24,830. “the private foundation of investor Derwood Chase.” It gave nearly $900,000 to right-wing groups in 2011 alone. Its beneficiaries have included many of SPN’s state-based organizations.

The JM Foundation. $15,000. According to its own website, it was created by Jeremiah Milbank, who “was an ardent believer in individual liberty, limited government, and free markets.” It lists its top activity as “supporting education and research that fosters market-based policy solutions, especially at state think tanks.” Like, for instance, the Ethan Allen Institute and its SPN cohorts.

That’s it. The Ethan Allen Institute may be able to deny knowingly receiving money from the Kochs, but there’s no doubt that it is significantly dependent on out-of-state “foundations” with very strong Koch ties, and with Koch dollars providing much of their lifeblood.

Last time I wrote about EAI, I mentioned a Tweet that accused me of lying about its ties to the Kochs. I expect I’ll get an apology about the time Hell freezes over.

No more listening and learning

2 Replies

After his humiliating near-defeat at the ham-fists of Scott Milne last November, Governor Shumlin said the result was “a very clear message to this governor to listen, learn, reflect, be more inclusive.”

Sounded good. But if he ever meant it, he’s all done with that wimpy crap now. On Friday, Shumlin was a guest on The Mark Johnson Show; it was a full-on display of his least endearing qualities. He stuck to his rhetorical guns; he sidestomped inconvenient questions; he refused to acknowledge any mistakes or failings; he contradicted himself with blind insouciance; he belittled those who disagree with him.

It was pretty damned awful. Perhaps it was understandable, since he spoke with Johnson directly after House Speaker Shap Smith’s appearance, in which he openly differed with Shumlin on the way forward for Vermont Health Connect. Shumlin has set two deadlines for VHC to hit designated performance targets, at the end of May and October; Smith says May is the only one that matters. And he said so, repeatedly, on live radio, mere minutes before Shumlin stepped to the mic.

And when the mic went live, here’s what the Governor had to say.

On the subject of Auditor Doug Hoffer’s report on VHC, which related a litany of bureaucratic and IT horrors:

No big surprises. Frankly, I’ve been saying, we’ve been saying since the exchange went up it’s been a huge disappointment.

Yeah, well, a few days before it went up, you used the infamous phrase “nothing-burger.”

Technically, I suppose it’s true that Shumlin has consistently expressed disappointment. But he’s also consistently expressed optimism that everything’s under control and a fix is just around the corner. He has made promises and set deadlines, and failed to meet his own performance marks every time. He has doused his own credibility with gasoline and set it afire.

I don’t think that’s a surprise to any Vermonters that are frustrated by the exchange.

This is one of Shumlin’s tiredest tricks: positioning himself as shoulder-to-shoulder with us Vermonters, sharing our aspirations and frustrations. Man Of The People. Hey, he likes to hunt and fish and drink Budweiser down at the Legion hall.

Problem is, it comes across as completely phony. It doesn’t convince anybody, no matter how painfully earnest his voice gets.

So really, the Auditor’s report reflects what we’ve been saying all along. It’s a helpful document, but we have dealt with the issues that he reported. That’s what audits tend to do; they look back instead of forward.

Perhaps true, but misleading. Hoffer’s audit focused on several independent reports evaluating the VHC process and recommending changes. Many of those changes were not made. Indeed, some previously identified problems continue to bedevil VHC and may prevent it from becoming fully operational.

ImNotWrongThere’s a bigger, more fundamental issue with Shumlin’s statement. He hates admitting he was ever wrong or uninformed. Trouble is, we’ve heard it before and we’ve stopped believing it.

What he should have said: “The Auditor’s report is a troubling document, revealing a number of failings by me and my administration. I apologize for the difficulties we have caused thousands of Vermonters. We are doing everything we can to correct our mistakes and do better from now on. I remain confident that Vermont Health Connect will become fully functional and serve Vermonters as we intended.”

Back to the real interview. For several minutes, Johnson tried to pin the Governor down on the real import of the two deadlines, May and October. What emerged was a kicking-and-screaming acknowledgement that there’s only one real deadline, and it’s the end of October.

I’m saying if those two functions don’t work by November, the deadline I laid out in a press conference a month ago, whenever it was, we are gonna look at whatever other options we have.

Well, actually he gave two deadlines. What would happen, Johnson asked, if the change of circumstance function isn’t working by the end of May — Shumlin’s self-selected deadline? Would the contractor get more time to fix it?

I’m not going to speculate on it not working. My job is to make it work.

That’s wrong on two counts. First, Shumlin himself has been talking about what will happen if it doesn’t work. And second, he’d be an irresponsible administrator if he didn’t have contingency plans.

Johnson, a bit taken aback by Shumlin’s assertion that he wasn’t “going to speculate on it not working,” replied “You’ve got to give the people some idea of what you’ll do if it doesn’t work.”

I did. I said if the change of circumstance is’t workin’ and if you can’t sign up folks for re-enrollment in November, we’re gonna make that decision together, we should move on if it doesn’t work.

Okay, so now he did do the very thing he just denied he had done. And he conveniently deep-sixed his own May deadline, opening a line of retreat for possible use on June 1.

Finally, Johnson asked if November was the real, actual deadline. Shumlin said “Yes.” Johnson pointed out that “The Speaker says it’s May.”

I don’t see this as a test of dates. I see this as a challenge to make the exchange work the way we all wish it to work for all Vermonters.

Well, it wasn’t the Speaker’s idea to set dates; it was the Governor’s. Now he doesn’t want to talk dates. And in downplaying May 31 in favor of October 31, he has deepened the divide between himself and Smith.

All in all, it was a performance that echoed the worst of pre-election Shumlin — the overweeningly self-confident Master Of His Domain and ersatz Man Of The People. I guess he’s done all the listening he wants to do, and he didn’t like what he heard.

Surgery with hammers

Leave a reply

So the House passed a tax bill including a measure that will make Vermont’s income tax system more progressive by capping itemized deductions at 2.5 times the standard deduction. Since affluent taxpayers benefit from deductions far more than low earners, the deduction cap will (modestly) increase their taxes.

That’s a good thing. And of course the Senate can’t leave it alone.

Sen. Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, wants to take a more “surgical” approach [to tax deductions].

… In a Senate Finance Committee bill he introduced on Tuesday, Ashe proposes three changes: A cap on mortgage deductions (to be determined, but between $12,000 and $15,000); a 3 percent minimum income tax; the elimination of charitable deductions and the creation of a 5 percent income tax credit for donations of over $5,000 made in Vermont.

Tim Ashe is a very smart man. He should consider developing a personality if he wants to run for higher office, but he’s got a lot of good ideas — such as wanting to take a comprehensive look at how our tax structure works and doesn’t work.

But “surgical” is a misnomer in this case. Using tax deductions and tax credits to influence public behavior is inherently inefficient.  Those tax breaks are almost always marginal and have little to no effect on most financial decision-making by individuals and businesses. This is especially true of state tax policy: Vermont’s deductions are worth far less than the federal ones, and their impact is feebler and harder to measure.

Don’t believe me? Well, when was the last time “tax implications” were a decisive factor in a purchasing decision?

Sure, it’s a factor, but the benefits are dwarfed by the costs. We’d be far better off if we stopped trying to micromanage how people use their money and created a much simpler tax system.

Still don’t believe me? Okay, let’s take a popular and very direct tax incentive: the sales tax holiday. Yes, it encourages people to buy goods on a given day — but most of those goods would have been purchased anyway, sooner rather than later. The tax holiday concentrates that purchasing in a single day, but it creates little or no additional demand. The state foregoes sales tax revenue for very little real effect on the economy.

Still don’t believe me? How about this: even when a tax incentive has an effect, it has even greater side effects. Take, for example, the mortgage interest deduction: it has encouraged home ownership — which may or may not actually be a good thing, especially in an age of greater mobility — but it gives the biggest tax breaks to those who need them least. A rich guy owning a million-dollar home and a country estate will get a whole lot more benefit than a median-income family scratching out a mortgage.

The mortgage interest deduction’s unintended consequence: We are all subsidizing the mansions and playgrounds of the wealthy.

Ashe’s ideas for a “surgical” approach seem okay, I guess, but I’d much rather take the House’s approach of a simple deduction cap. Let’s stop pretending we can steer our economy through the tax code. Let’s have a bias for simplicity when considering changes to our tax code.

Et tu, Shapleigh?

Leave a reply

Once in a while, even a jaded Political Observer sees something that cracks through his tough shell of cynicism and evinces a breathy “Whoa!” It happened last night when I was reading a report by VPR’s Peter Hirschfeld about Vermont Health Connect.

Background: Governor Shumlin has said he’ll be ready to explore alternatives to VHC if it fails to meet functionality deadlines at the end of May and October. The “Whoa!” comes courtesy of House Speaker Shap Smith, who flat-out said there’s only one deadline that matters, and it’s the first one.

Smith on Thursday morning said he’ll look to begin the transition to a federal version of the website if May passes without a change-of-circumstance fix. “If nearly two years after we try to bring the exchange online we still don’t have an exchange that works in an effective way, then I believe that we need to move to another system,” Smith says.

"Wait, what did you say?"

“Wait, what did you just say?”

That’s a pretty clear statement that pretty clearly puts Mr. Speaker and the Governor at odds. And Shap Smith is not one to speak without thinking. Carefully. Twice. At least.

If you had any doubt about that, Mr. Speaker doubled down on his comments today on “The Mark Johnson Show.”

If we don’t meet the May 31 deadline… we will need to explore other options.

He asserted that many Vermonters had “already lost confidence in the exchange,” and “at some point, they will lose all confidence.” And if May 31 comes and goes without success, “I don’t see how we can go to Vermonters” and tell them it will work eventually.

When Johnson noted that Shumlin has two deadlines, May and October, and asked “Is May your deadline?” Smith replied, “Yes.” He expressed hope that VHC will meet the May deadline, but sketched out a plan for legislative committees to work over the summer to develop alternatives.

Smith’s appearance before the Johnson microphone was followed, mirabile dictu, by Governor Shumlin himself. And Shumlin stuck to his guns.

“There are two dates. Change of circumstance needs to work by May 31, and re-enrollment by October 31. If those two functions aren’t working by November, we’ll be looking at other options.”

There it is. The two most powerful Democrats in Montpelier* have very different outlooks on Vermont Health Connect. If I were an irresponsible blogger, I’d be tempted to write something about “the opening salvos in the 2016 Democratic primary.” Good thing I’m not.

*John Campbell? Feh.

And really, that’s not what this is about. This is about identifying the best way forward. And in this case, Shap Smith is right: if VHC’s change of circumstance function isn’t working on June 1, it will be time to start finding another way — even if it can’t be implemented until the 2017 insurance year. Which everyone agrees it can’t.

Smith is acting less in his own political interest than in his party’s interest. Waiting until November would push the process of creating an alternative well into the 2016 campaign season. Democrats would only be able to offer promises to find a better way, which won’t convince anybody.

By this time next year, they must be able to articulate a clearly defined better way. Keeping to Shumlin’s timetable would risk immense harm to the Democratic Party in 2016. I suspect that Mr. Speaker isn’t willing to take that risk, even if the alternative is to throw shade on his own Governor.

Mind you, everyone — including Smith — wants VHC to work. They want all of this talk and speculation to be rendered moot. Smith doesn’t want to part ways with the Governor, and hopes he doesn’t have to take that step. But if May 31 comes and goes, he is prepared to move in another direction whether the Governor likes it or not.

THE IRONY!! IT BURNS!!!!!!

3 Replies

Pardon this brief sojourn outside Vermont’s borders, but I just can’t resist.

As my readers are painfully aware, I’m a big fan of irony. But this… this is Irony Overload. This is irony so bright you can’t stare directly at it for fear of going blind. This is nuke-level irony that can destroy an entire city. This is Irony That Wiped Out The Dinosaurs.

This is… sick.

Jeb Bush is utterly clueless or completely shameless, one or the other. Because his own family is a walking, talking, multigenerational advertisement for American social immobility. Wikipedia:

Along with many members who have been successful bankers and businessmen, across generations the family includes two U.S. Senators, one Supreme Court Justice, two Governors and two Presidents (one of the two presidents also served as Vice President).  …Peter Schweizer, author of a biography of the family, has described the Bushes as “the most successful political dynasty in American history”.

So all we have to do is make Jeb the third Bush president in less than twenty years, and he’ll get right to work on that social mobility thing.

Time for Bill Sorrell to make a dignified exit

6 Replies

One of the proudest moments of my blogging career was in May 2012, when Vermont Eternal General Bill Sorrell was launching his re-election campaign. In his speech, he said “I’ve been called a two-fisted attorney general, and there’s a reason for that.”

Welp, turned out that the only person who’d called him a “two-fisted attorney general” was Yours Truly. And it was meant as sarcasm.

Of course, when it comes to Himself, our E.G. suffers from extreme myopia. He can’t see that anybody might dislike or disrespect him.

But in fact, there’s widespread evidence that Sorrell is rapidly becoming the Chuck Noland of Vermont politics, marooned on a desert island, holding endless conversations with his sole companion, a volleyball named Wilson.

On top of that, there’s the continuing string of embarrassing revelations about Sorrell’s naked-emperor tenure as A.G. The latest, from Seven Days’ Paul Heintz, concerns a misbegotten lawsuit against major oil companies over the gasoline additive MTBE.

When Sorrell announced the suit last year, he billed it as a courageous gambit on behalf of consumers and the environment. But as Heintz reports, there are two big problems with that characterization:

— Sorrell filed the suit at the instigation of a top law firm that does a very healthy business in representing state Attorneys General in lucrative litigation. And routinely gives significant campaign cash to AGs like Sorrell.

— The suit was filed at a very late date, and will probably go nowhere as a result. Other states filed MTBE suits, and received big settlements, years ago. New Hampshire got its sweetheart deal way back in 2004. Which makes one wonder why the hell our Two-Fisted Eternal General didn’t take the copycat route way back then.

Apparently he couldn’t come up with the idea on his own, even though the New Hampshire suit was big news at the time. He didn’t think of it until his big-time lawyer buddies floated the idea.

Makes me wonder how many other times our T.F.E.G. was similarly asleep at the wheel. And remember, his supposed courage in taking big corporations to court is the foundation of his reputation.

The last time I wrote a piece about Sorrell’s dumbassery and possible crookery, I got a whole lot of compliments about it the next time I spent a day at the Statehouse. I have since gotten further communications that make it clear Sorrell has very few friends left in Vermont politics. Heintz’ column includes comments from some of our top officeholders who make it clear they want nothing to do with Sorrell’s increasingly self-soiled reputation.

If Bill Sorrell had any capacity for authentic self-examination, he would probably decide that this should be his last term as our T.F.E.G. He could coast out of office to broad acclaim — mainly from those who’d be relieved to see his retirement. It’d be like Derek Jeter collecting accolades while having a truly wretched 2014, playing every day and sabotaging the Yankee lineup by insisting on batting second, and yet being universally hailed as the Living Embodiment of Baseball.

However, since Bill Sorrell seems to be completely lacking in capacity for authentic self-examination, it’ll take quite a bit of persuading to convince him not to run for re-election next year. Here’s hoping the Democratic Party and its leaders are up to the task.

Also, here’s hoping TJ Donovan has the stones to challenge our T.F.E.G. once again. If he were to lose again, he’d put his political future in serious doubt. But if he were to win, or force Sorrell to take the Jeter route, he would be doing the state a huge service. We need a real Attorney General, not the uncritical doofus who currently occupies the office.

The Quango Follies

2 Replies

Funny little piece of news, strikes me as just a bit off.

Mike Smith, former Douglas Administration functionary, then president of FairPoint and briefly co-prez of Burlington College, has a sweet new gig. He’ll be paid $70,000 for a six-month consultancy at the Emergency 911 Board.

This comes after the extremely sudden retirement of longtime E-911 chief Douglas Tucker. Smith’s brief is, curiously, both comprehensive and vague.

Smith will examine staffing and call volumes, and assist the interim executive director with day-to-day management issues.

… Smith will be responsible for developing a process to recruit and hire a new executive director. He will need to prepare a report for the E-911 board about how emergency telephone services should be organized in Vermont, and what models “could result in efficiencies.”

Now, the E-911 Board is what the Brits call a “quango” — a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization. It’s an entity with a public purpose but not directly answerable to central government authority. Quangos can perform critical functions; they can also be dumping grounds for hangers-on who need to be parachuted into a well-paid but not terribly demanding job. (See the classic “Yes, Prime Minister” episode, “Jobs For the Boys.”)

The E-911 Board didn’t have to get approval for the Smith contract from the Shumlin administration. And the contract is an interesting move for a number of different reasons:

— Smith is a notable Republican who serves as part-time “political analyst” for WCAX-TV. He has also written some unflattering opinion pieces about the Democratic administration.

— The E-911 Board faces a substantial budget cut that would force consolidation of its four call centers into two.

— The Shumlin administration has proposed folding the Board’s responsibilities into the Department of Public Safety, which would bring an end to its quango status.

— Because of his tenure at FairPoint, Smith “will not involve himself in any matters concerning FairPoint in order to avoid any perceived conflicts of interest.” Well, considering that FairPoint is in the middle of implementing an $11.2 million state contract for a new E-911 system, Smith will have to recuse himself from an awful lot of Board activities. If he keeps his promise, it seems to me that his ability to fulfill his duties will be limited.

Know what this looks like to me? An independent but publicly-funded agency, under pressure to cut costs and submit to administrative controls, has hired a prominent Shumlin critic to look for ways out of its situation — thus inflating its spending in the short run. If Smith comes up with savings comparable to the proposed call center cuts, then the Board will have grounds for insisting that the cuts don’t have to be made and its independence doesn’t need to be taken away.

Yeah, kinda smells a little.